Victorian Vs Current Rail Projects

[matacaster]

The Victorians, such as Brunel, certainly didn't always get it right. There were many cost over runs and sometimes things didn't go to plan (eg atmospheric). However despite 150 years of 'progress' and unbelievable amounts of planning before projects take place (or are scrapped), the truth is that the current planning systems take far too long, cost far too much and rarely deliver on time and to budget. Those that do see the light of day are often de-scoped to stay somewhere near budget. Brunel would have likely finished most of the projects before projects these days get to grip3. Part of the issue is the attempt to eliminate risk of any sort, but that carries a cost as does the planning appeals process. The fact that projects take so long now actually means that they are likely to span a Government and are thus at risk of cancellation.

What would you suggest which could make projects cheaper, quicker and more likely to happen?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

It's an interesting question and part of the answer may be to ensure that smaller projects are planned and delivered locally rather than by a centralised bureaucracy. Things like Metro extentions etc generally seem to come in on time and on budget.

It will be an interesting test case to see how the locally commisioned electrification of the south Wales Valley lines pans out compared to the blow-outs on the GWR mainline.

 

[krus_aragon]

In the Victorian era, most railway building was done with private money, and Parliament adoped a laissez-faire attitude: if they've got the money, and some local support (MP / landowners), and there's no serious objection, then go ahead.

One contrary example would be the building of a rail route to Ireland. Parliament got really stuck in with this one, as it would be a Mail route for the Post Office as well. The first commission was set up in 1836, and after several competing schemes, surveys and reports, the Chester & Holyhead Railway's bill didn't make it into Law until 1844. (A recession at the end of the 1830s didn't help things, either.)

That 1844 act deferred dealing with the tricky part of crossing the Menai Straits, that portion was authorised in a separate act a year later. Even when it had been authorised, supporters of cometing schemes were still advocating theirs. The CHR ended up in a dire financial state due to the cost of building this heavily-engineered railway, and were knocked further aback when the Mail contract was awarded to a competitor. Construction of the first phase to Bangor took four years, with the full route over the Britannia Bridge not opened until 1850, fourteen years after the first Commission met.

• Project considered to be of national importance? Check.
• Argument over the best route to take? Check.
• Opposition to the route chosen, even after authorised by Parliament? Check
• Splitting the project over multiple Acts of Parliament, in order to get started sooner and/or get the more popular bits authorised first? Check.
• Cost overruns causing concern? Check
• Questioning the need for such expenditure in a time of recession? Check
• Project start-to-completion taking many years? Check.

It sounds remarkably a cetrain contemporary railway project...

 

[edwin_m]

It was simpler in Victorian times. As long as you respected the wishes of a small number of local landowners (hence various "unnecessary" tunnels and deviations) you could do what you like with the plebs. We are now much more democratic, in that respect at least.

 

[J s]

The suggestion that Victorian engineering is in any preferable to now is simply absurd! The shear number of deaths involved is a simple enough rebuttal to shut down the argument on its own. Besides that, the whole framework that Victorians operated in is entirely to the modern day; skilled labour was incredibly cheap and abundant resources were available in ways that simply aren't today. Large swathes of oak woodland could be chopped down at will (it is also for these reasons why architecture is so drastically different). On top of all this, the demands placed of modern infrastructure is far higher and requires far higher quality of both material and design.

I think your conceptualisation of Brunel is someway of the mark, and while your final question might not be a bad one, I don't think this is the correct way to couch it.

 

[DarloRich]

This is a spectacular silly thread. It is like comparing chocolate and wholemeal bread and asking which is the better fruit

 

[trebor79]

Whenever I travel by train, I remind myself that most of the major engineering structures were built by hand, with picks, shovels and wheelbarrows. It's astonishing really.
We're all used to seeing big cuttings, embankments and bridges on motorways, done with modern machinery. It's easy to forget none of that existed.
Today we use laser aligned tunnel boring machines to dig. There was a documentary about crossrail ages ago and the engineers were pleased they broke through into a station box within 2mm of the intended location. That's impressive in a way, but nothing like as impressive as tunnels being dug in the 1800s, guided by string, plumblines and theodolites in candle light and headings meeting up within a few inches of perfect alignment.
It did seem to take a long time to build anything, but then this island is a much more crowded place than it was back then - only 15.9m in 1841. So there's more to take into account, plan for, find solutions for. Much higher environmental and safety standards. Build a railway in the 1800s and most of it is open countryside. Build a railway now, and even in the countryside there will be roads, gas, oil, water, sewerage, electricity and telephone infrastructure to get in the way. It's not just bridging valleys and digging cuttings anymore.

 

[DerekC]

This is a spectacular silly thread. It is like comparing chocolate and wholemeal bread and asking which is the better fruit

Not sure why it's silly to ask what could make projects cheaper, quicker and more likely to happen. I recall one comparison which was done ten years ago between HS1 and a high speed project in Spain showed that the construction costs were similar, but the UK spent much more on consultants and lawyers covering repeated planning inquiries, optioneering, government investigations, Acts of Parliament, repetitive design exercises using different consultants at each stage, environmental studies, land and property acquisition etc etc. A project like Crossrail or HS2 becomes a gravy train long before it runs commissioning trials. What could make it better? A national transport strategy bought into by all major political parties, perhaps. Then some of the repetition and optioneering might be reduced, and maybe even some of the opposition.

 

[RLBH]

recall one comparison which was done ten years ago between HS1 and a high speed project in Spain showed that the construction costs were similar, but the UK spent much more on consultants and lawyers covering repeated planning inquiries, optioneering, government investigations, Acts of Parliament, repetitive design exercises using different consultants at each stage, environmental studies, land and property acquisition etc etc.

That keeps coming up, and not just in the rail sector. Government in general, and this country in particular, hates risk, and endless reports and inquiries let them think they're controlling it. If you want to get things built faster and cheaper, stop doing studies and inquiries and just build the damn thing.

Doing anything today will still cost more and take longer than in the Victorian era, because the practices of the day would be totally unacceptable now. And rightly so. But a lot of it is entirely avoidable, self-inflicted injury.

 

[DarloRich]

That keeps coming up, and not just in the rail sector. Government in general, and this country in particular, hates risk, and endless reports and inquiries let them think they're controlling it. If you want to get things built faster and cheaper, stop doing studies and inquiries and just build the damn thing.

Doing anything today will still cost more and take longer than in the Victorian era, because the practices of the day would be totally unacceptable now. And rightly so. But a lot of it is entirely avoidable, self-inflicted injury.

Could you provide a detailed example to back up your point?

 

[Mikey C]

It was a lot easier when you could demolish houses and churches to build your viaducts and stations, without having to worry about homelessness, planning rules or local politicians!

The urban motorways built in the 60s and 70s were probably the last time when major schemes could be (literally and metaphorically) bulldozed through. The reaction to those schemes has affected all transport infrastructure.

 

[d9009alycidon]

It was a lot easier when you could demolish houses and churches to build your viaducts and stations, without having to worry about homelessness, planning rules or local politicians!

The urban motorways built in the 60s and 70s were probably the last time when major schemes could be (literally and metaphorically) bulldozed through. The reaction to those schemes has affected all transport infrastructure.

Add to that there is now the ecological conditions that are applied to any big construction project, like ensuring that trees are not disturbed during bird nesting season, making sure badgers and other wildlife are not inconvenienced. Back in Victorian days the Navvies would have just eaten the local wildlife if it was edible

 

[Tobbes]

Add to that there is now the ecological conditions that are applied to any big construction project, like ensuring that trees are not disturbed during bird nesting season, making sure badgers and other wildlife are not inconvenienced. Back in Victorian days the Navvies would have just eaten the local wildlife if it was edible

And quite possibly if it was inedible!

It is easy to bemoan the planning system, optimism bias and the rest, but if you really want to speed things up, then you have to be prepared to empower the railway (& therefore in our context the government) to disregard property rights, environmental considerations and anything that looks like mitigation in favour of residents en route.

Q1 Would it be cheaper and quicker to use cuttings rather than cut and cover tunnels for HS2 in the Chilterns?
Q2 Would it be cheaper and quicker to reverse Justine Greening's additional HS2 tunnels through Tory constituencies?

A1 & A2 Certainly - and in darkest Victorian times it would have happened.

But it won't happen becuase of the political costs.

 

[DarloRich]

Pointless tunneling was hardly unknown in the Victorian period. The difference is that tunnelling was done to apease the local lord and not the plebs.

That is a massive difference: in the Victorian period the views of the great unwashed were worthless

 

[krus_aragon]

The difference is that tunnelling was done to apease the local lord and not the plebs.

Not always: in some parts of the land, the Almighty had decided to put a mountain right where the railway wanted to go!

 

[edwin_m]

Not always: in some parts of the land, the Almighty had decided to put a mountain right where the railway wanted to go!

True but there were plenty of tunnels with no engineering reason to exist, Shugborough and the one under Haddon Hall to name but two.

 

[matacaster]

The suggestion that Victorian engineering is in any preferable to now is simply absurd! The shear number of deaths involved is a simple enough rebuttal to shut down the argument on its own. Besides that, the whole framework that Victorians operated in is entirely to the modern day; skilled labour was incredibly cheap and abundant resources were available in ways that simply aren't today. Large swathes of oak woodland could be chopped down at will (it is also for these reasons why architecture is so drastically different). On top of all this, the demands placed of modern infrastructure is far higher and requires far higher quality of both material and design.

I think your conceptualisation of Brunel is someway of the mark, and while your final question might not be a bad one, I don't think this is the correct way to couch it.

Of course the number of deaths in engineering projects in Victorian times is unacceptable now, but whether you like it or not there is a balance between risk and cost. Many safety procedures have reduced risk and are a great thing, however, if the cost of some safety measures means that a project is too expensive and gets cancelled (so people then go by the less safe road system) is counter-productive.

Before we all become self-righteous about today, what, I wonder would the cavalier Victorians think of around 1700 deaths on the roads per year? or even the two Boeing jets which killed circa 300 people?

The railways have to provide fencing all over the place as (relatively few in number) trains are considered dangerous (someone actually tried to sue NR because their daughter was killed sitting on the tracks at around 23.00 having ignored warning signs), there is no such requirement on roads except in limited stretches - its the balance you see, what the public will accept.

as an aside, I was informed by a scaffolding company that H&S was their biggest money spinner - builders were told by council to put a scaffolding ramp with handrails up to a portakabin they were using which was less than 1 foot above ground and only for construction workers. There is safety and simply covering your back with other people's money.

 

[edwin_m]

However accidents do cost money as well as lives, and they cost a lot more today than in Victorian times when the likes of navvies and third-class passengers were pretty much dispensable. So there may be financial as well as moral reasons for improving safety standards both in construction and in operation. The big question is where to draw the line.

 

[DarloRich]

builders were told by council to put a scaffolding ramp with handrails up to a portakabin they were using which was less than 1 foot above ground and only for construction workers. There is safety and simply covering your back with other people's money.

that is about something different and sounds more like accessibility than anything else. But let's not let anecdotal evidence get in the way............

 

[matacaster]

However accidents do cost money as well as lives, and they cost a lot more today than in Victorian times when the likes of navvies and third-class passengers were pretty much dispensable. So there may be financial as well as moral reasons for improving safety standards both in construction and in operation. The big question is where to draw the line.

I agree entirely!

 

[Bald Rick]

This is a spectacular silly thread. It is like comparing chocolate and wholemeal bread and asking which is the better fruit

Quite.
(The answer is Cheese & Onion)

 

[wellhouse]

It might, perhaps, be that there is misguided overconfidence in our ability to assess and predict the future and eliminate risk. Hence the monumental investment in evaluation and feasibility studies, and not just for railway projects.

What if some successful outcomes owe at least as much to luck as judgement, and many less successful ones are victims of misfortune rather than incompetence or negligence?

For example, while the Waverley reopening seems to be generally regarded as a success, I understand that the passenger figures for each station vary significantly above and below predictions that used the same methodology.

 

[matacaster]

It might, perhaps, be that there is misguided overconfidence in our ability to assess and predict the future and eliminate risk. Hence the monumental investment in evaluation and feasibility studies, and not just for railway projects.

What if some successful outcomes owe at least as much to luck as judgement, and many less successful ones are victims of misfortune rather than incompetence or negligence?

For example, while the Waverley reopening seems to be generally regarded as a success, I understand that the passenger figures for each station vary significantly above and below predictions that used the same methodology.

Generally, (not just railways) feasibility and subsequent studies before any spadework takes place are a useful tool in deciding whether the project is worth doing. However, what is often overlooked is that they can often be unduly expensive as those carrying out the work seek to ensure that they aren't going to get blamed for missing something and max out on the amount of money they can make knowing full well that they can put in lots of caveats to make sure any later problems cannot be laid at their door. The (sensible) idea of such studies is you get cheap and relatively cheerful early investigations which are expendable should it be determined the project is actually not feasible. What often seems to happen is one gets long and very expensive studies which are appear detailed but just cost a lot more money, take a lot longer and don't necessarily seem to inform the decision making any better, just pushing up the costs. It is also a maxim that studies can rather easily be manipulated by the authors to reflect what the commissioner wants the conclusion to be!

 

[DPWH]

My thinking is that economic growth generally was very strong in the Victorian period, which meant that infrastructure investment was possible. There are parallels with the current Chinese economy. But now Britain's economy is advanced but essentially stagnant, and there isn't enough money for infrastructure projects.

 

[Bald Rick]

For example, while the Waverley reopening seems to be generally regarded as a success, I understand that the passenger figures for each station vary significantly above and below predictions that used the same methodology.

And it also cost about 5 times it’s estimate after the first feasibility study.

 

[edwin_m]

Some of the problem is that a lot of studies are required to obtain funding, and funding isn't automatic if the study demonstrates that the project has benefits that exceed a certain threshold relative to costs. We get the situation where a study gives a reasonably positive outcome, then there is a long wait for funding either for a more detailed study or for the scheme itself. Assuming this is eventually granted, it's fairly much inevitable that something has changed so what we thought was previously established has to be looked at again, and this often results in the predicted cost going up.

I've suggested before a system where a decision is made fairly early that a scheme is worth taking forward provided its costs and benefits stay within certain limits. This would include reserving funding in a future year to actually build it. If the development of the scheme took it outside that "envelope" then work would stop unless new limits were agreed. There would have to be a power to cancel a scheme even if it remained within the limits if wider issues made that necessary, but this would require someone to make and announce an active decision to stop the process rather than just failing to respond Castlefield-style.

 

[DarloRich]

I've suggested before a system where a decision is made fairly early that a scheme is worth taking forward provided its costs and benefits stay within certain limits. This would include reserving funding in a future year to actually build it. If the development of the scheme took it outside that "envelope" then work would stop unless new limits were agreed. There would have to be a power to cancel a scheme even if it remained within the limits if wider issues made that necessary, but this would require someone to make and announce an active decision to stop the process rather than just failing to respond Castlefield-style.

but that is exactly what the GRIP process is designed to do...............................

( and your funding plan isnt feasible considering how the railway is funded. This is especially so since the switch from AME to DEL funding style see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ding/how-to-understand-public-sector-spending)

 

[edwin_m]

but that is exactly what the GRIP process is designed to do...............................

( and your funding plan isnt feasible considering how the railway is funded. This is especially so since the switch from AME to DEL funding style see here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ding/how-to-understand-public-sector-spending)

Existing processes don't include the principle of going forward automatically provided the scheme stays within certain parameters. Instead they have to stop after each GRIP stage and wait for everyone to agree it's worth paying for the next stage. Once they are allegedly shovel-ready they have to wait for TWA and funding to build them.

 

[Dr Day]

And these days Network Rail isn't funded to do enhancements, so it isn't just GRIP. There are various funders out there but generally all need some form of staged DfT-approved business cases (or Welsh/Scottish variants).

 

[DarloRich]

Existing processes don't include the principle of going forward automatically provided the scheme stays within certain parameters. Instead they have to stop after each GRIP stage and wait for everyone to agree it's worth paying for the next stage. Once they are allegedly shovel-ready they have to wait for TWA and funding to build them.

I am afraid that isn't correct. You dont necessarily have to stop after each GRIP stage.

If only the world if public funding were as simple as people here wish! What you are asking is for the politics to be taken out of what is a very political process. Government wont give up the ability to "re proritise" what they want to spend money on and to limit thier choices in the event of economic change.

It simply wont happen.